Mr. GOSSETT. This closes the formal hearings. No other witnesses will be heard. Those who wish to file statements for the record have until the 1st day of October to do so. The committee is adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12: 35, the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the chairman.) (The following statements were submitted for the record :) MEMORANDUM OF LEANDER I. SHELLEY, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY AND GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES, WITH RESPECT TO H. R. 5991 AND H. R. 5992 This memorandum is submitted to the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives for inclusion in the record of its hearings upon the above-numbered bills relating to submerged coastal lands. Set forth herein are the comments made on behalf of the Port of New York Authority and, at the request of its chairman of the Subcommittee on Submerged and Reclaimed Lands, the views of the American Association of Port Authorities insofar as the interests of its United States members are concerned. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES The American Association of Port Authorities is an association of State and municipal governmental boards and agencies representing most of the great ports of this hemisphere. The United States ports are located mainly in the States bordering upon the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific Ocean. A list of the United States members of the association, geographically subdivided, is annexed hereto as exhibit I, and demonstrates the broad representation in the membership of this association. The bylaws of the association provide that, with respect to any legislative proposal pending before the Congress or any other matter which involves the governmental policy of the United States, only the members from the United States may vote (exhibit II). The bylaws also require that, if by reason of a vote on such matters a recommendation, is to be made to the Congress on behalf of the association, it shall be stated in such recommendation that only United States ports voted thereon. THE PORT OF NEW YORK AUTHORITY The Port of New York Authority is a bi-State body, created by compact between the States of New York and New Jersey in 1921. This compact, approved by the Congress of the United States in Public Resolution 17, Sixty-seventh Congress, first session, created what is known as the Port of New York District. The port district includes an extensive area in both States, centering about New York Bay. Lower New York Bay is located within its territorial boundaries. Under the treaty between the two States, the Port of New York Authority is charged generally with the duty to protect and promote the development of the port district. Among other things, it is charged with the duty of making appropriate recommendations from time to time to the Congress of the United States. PARTICIPATION IN HEARINGS HERETOFORE HELD This subcommittee has indicated that the record of this hearing would be held open for the purpose of receiving further memoranda from any interested party and would be deemed to include the record of the hearings held last year. Both the American Association of Port Authorities and the Port of New York Authority participated in those hearings. We respectfully request the committee to review my testimony before the Joint Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate and of the House of Representatives on S. 1988, Eightieth Congress, second session (testimony of Leander I. Shelley, March 5, 1948, minutes, pp. 2185–2261). BILLS UNDER CONSIDERATION This subcommittee is presently considering two bills introduced by Representative Walter (H. R. 5991 and H. R. 5992), relating to the exploration, development, and conservation of submerged coastal lands. Each of these bills is primarily concerned with the problem of the disposition of the revenues obtained from the natural resources deposited in the submerged coastal lands, as between the Federal Government and the States. The former bill divides the proceeds so obtained, while the latter grants them entirely to the Federal Government. This problem of the disposition of the revenues is not one in which either the American Association of Port Authorities or the Port of New York Authority has a paramount concern. However, each of these bills also proposes to confirm to the several States and their grantees the title to land beneath inland waters within the boundaries of the respective States and to confirm rights in the marginal belt granted by these States for purposes of constructing, maintaining, using or occupying any dock, pier, wharf, jetty, or other structures. INTEREST OF AAPA AND PNYA Both the American Association of Port Authorities and the Port of New York Authority are deeply interested in the provisions of these bills which propose to confirm the title to lands beneath inland waters. As will be hereinafter explained, neither of these bills will definitely confirm the titles to certain lands along the shores of the great ports and harbors of this Nation. Both bills are inadequate because no standard is established for determining the line between the open sea and the ports, harbors, and bays along the coast line of the United States. SITUATION FOLLOWING THE CALIFORNIA CASE Subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. California (332 U. S. 19 (1947)), there has arisen the problem of determining the line between inland navigable waters and the area in which the Court has held that the Federal Government has "paramount rights." The vital difficulty in this situation is that no one, including the Supreme Court, has been able to successfully define this line of demarcation. PORT BOUNDARIES Your committee are, of course, well aware that much of the waterfront land of many ports, harbors and bays, on which today stand many millions of dollars' worth of business, industrial, and commercial developments, are lands that were formerly under water. Many great port improvements are projected which cannot be undertaken while uncertainty as to the exact boundary of the port exists. While we do not recommend that the present bills be amended, we wish to call to the attention of the committee the fact that, if either of these bills is favorably reported and becomes law, it will be necessary to enact additional legislation which will accurately define the line of demarcation between ports, harbors, bays, and inland waters and the open sea. The exact form of this legislation is a matter which will necessarily be one to be resolved in the future. At this time we wish only to call to the attention of the committee the fact that the necessity for such additional legislation will exist if either of the proposed bills is passed. PREDECESSOR SOVEREIGNS Moreover, in view of the fact that the Thirteen Colonies which joined together to form the United States generally bordered upon the Atlantic Ocean, this subcommittee are, of course, aware that much of the land beneath inland navigable waters is held pursuant to grants from predecessor sovereigns, such as the Colonial governments. Each of the bills to which this memorandum is addressed provides, in confirming title to inland waters in grantees, that the term “grantees" includes: "All political subdivisions, municipalities, and persons holding grants from a State to submerged coastal lands if such grants were issued in accordance with the constitution, statutes, and decisions of the courts of the State in which such lands are situated." Since some lands beneath inland navigable waters are held by Colonial grants, it is submitted that the definition of "grantees" contained in the act should be amended by adding after the words "from a State," the additional words "or a predecessor sovereign." ALTERNATIVE LEGISLATION During the second session of the Eightieth Congress, a joint subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives held hearings on a bill introduced by Senator Moore and others (S. 1988) to confirm and establish the titles of the States to lands and resources beneath navigable waters within State boundaries. The bill under consideration at that time proposed to confirm and establish the title of the States to submerged coastal lands within the boundaries of the respective States, seaward to a line three geographical miles distant from the coast line of each respective State. An amendment to this bill was urged which would permit any State to extend its seaward boundaries to a line three geographical miles distant from its coast line and which would irrevocably approve and confirm any claim indicating the intent of a State to extend its boundaries to such line, without prejudice to its claim, if any it has, that its boundaries extend beyond that line. The bill then under consideration by the joint subcommittee (S. 1988) was amended and reintroduced at that session of the Eightieth Congress in the amended form, H. R. 5992. Many bills embodying the recommended provisions have been introduced during this first session of the Eighty-first Congress in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. As a matter of sound public policy, it is essential that the title to submerged lands within the ports, harbors, and bays of the States be removed from the threat of claim by the Federal Government. It is obviously impossible to go forward with necessary port improvements, at great expense, if title to the land on which they are constructed may suddenly prove defective. The passage of such a bill would, of course, remedy the situation now existing by reason of the uncertainty of the exact boundaries of the ports, bays, and harbors of the coast line. Such a bill would have the wholehearted support of both the Port of New York Authority and the American Association of Port Authorities. Respectfully submitted. LEANDER I. SHELLEY, General Counsel, The Port of New York Authority, The United States members of the American Association of Port Authorities— CLASS A State California. Illinois. Louisiana. Maryland. Massachusetts. Michigan.. New Jersey/New York.. Ohio.. Port Los Angeles. San Francisco.. New Orleans. do Detroit. Newark. New York district. Toledo. Portland. Philadelphia. Providence. Oregon. Pennsylvania.. Rhode Island. Organization Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners. City of San Diego, Harbor Department. Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans. Port of Detroit Commission. New Jersey Board of Commerce and Navigation. South Jersey Port Commission. Port of New York Authority. City of New York, Department of Marine and Aviation. Portland Commission of Public Docks. Philadelphia Department of Wharves, Docks, and Fer- City of Providence, Department of Public Works. The State Port Authority of Virginia. Port of Seattle. Milwaukee Board of Harbor Commissioners. United States members of the American Association of Port AuthoritiesCorporate members-Continued At the thirtieth annual meeting, 1941, the following bylaw was adopted by the American Association of Port Authorities: (19) If it shall be or become necessary to take a vote of the membership to determine the action to be taken by the association with respect to any legislative proposal pending before the Congress of the United States or with respect to any other matter which involves the policy of Congress or the governmental policy of the United States, only the votes cast by or on behalf of corporate members from the United States (including its Territories, possessions, and dependencies) shall be counted. Similarly, if it shall be or become necessary to take a vote of the board of directors or of any committee with respect to any such matter, only the votes of such members of the board or of such committee as are citizens and residents of the United States shall be counted. If as a result of any such vote, any recommendation shall be made or any opinion expressed on behalf of the association with respect to any such matter (whether to Congress or to any officer or agency of the United States or to the public press or otherwise), it shall also be stated that only United States ports, or United States citizens, as the case may be, voted upon such recommendation or expression of opinion. HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, Washington, D. C. LONG BEACH, CALIF., August 22, 1949. GENTLEMEN: In compliance with the long-distance telephone request this a. m., I am glad to have this opportunity to enter this statement in the hearing on the Rayburn tideland bill. I invite your particular attention to a few basic principles on which a logical solution of this question must devolve: (1) Time is always a factor in every human event or consideration. In laches, it is the principal factor. (2) It is physically impossible for any person or group to deal with any material or subject of which they have no conception. By reason of this fact, any material, condition or consideration cannot be recognized or considered as property prior to such conception. The age-old custom and law of discovery and prior claim is founded on these basic principles. I laid claim to "such natural resources as exist in the Pacific Ocean adjacent to the State boundary in the region of Long Beach and Huntington Beach. This claim is dated August 20, 1930, and will be protected to the extent of my ability as a citizen of the United States. There is no evidence than any other person had any conception of natural resources in this region prior to August 20, 1930. At that time this area was outside the established and recognized State boundary. This date, August 20, 1930, antedates the Federal proclamation, extending jurisdiction of Federal Government to the 600-foot depth, by 15 years and 39 days. In the past 19 years I have spent much time and considerable money in an effort to determine my constitutional property rights in these natural resources. In these efforts I received a letter from ex-Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, dated December 22, 1933, stating: "Title to the soil under the ocean within the 3-mile line is in the State of California"; also a letter from Secretary of War George H. Dern, dated October 6, 1933, in which we read, "The jurisdiction of the War Department over navigable waters of the United States is limited to such control as may be necessary to protect the public right of navigation." These and other facts of record show clearly that my claim has priority. (3). The law of use. In evolution it is clearly demonstrated that a thing or part not used is useless and by long-continued disuse it ceases to exist. This law is recognized and applied in irrigation laws in which it is settled that no person can hold water that he cannot use. Neither the Federal Government nor the State of California has any tangible plans for developing these resources; they have not manifested any concern about plans or means for making practicable use of these resources. This controversy over "ownership" precipitated by President Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and Harold Ickes, April 27, 1937, was in no sense calculated to improve or develop anything but dissension and confusion; in this line it has been a great success. From what little I know of the Rayburn bill it seems likely to make a bad matter worse. Since it appears raising this tideland question was a mistake, the sensible and logical thing to do would be to reestablish the recognized 3-mile boundary line and develop these resources by private enterprise, under the jurisdiction of the State inside this line and the Federal Government outside. By enactment of H. R. 358, it would be possible to develop this specified area, 82 square miles, with private capital in a manner to add many millions of taxable wealth and urgently needed facilities to this community. Instead, by political bungling, we have the inevitable expense, with confusion and dissension. In this connection, I invite your attention to the following press notice in the Los Angeles Examiner today: WORLD'S UNTAPPED OIL ENOUGH FOR 500 YEARS, EXPERT SAYS LAKE SUCCESS, N. Y., August 22 (INS).-The United Nations Scientific Conference was given authoritative estimates today that the world's undiscovered oil reserves total 1,500 billion barrels. The scientists and experts from 70 countries were told that on the basis of the world's present annual consumption, the 1,500 billion barrels will meet all demands for the next 500 years. A. I. Levorsen, dean of the School of Mineral Science at Stanford University, Calif., told the conference that even that estimate "by no means can be taken as final." He added: "Any failure of world supply to meet world demand over |